Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

Actually it looked like you defending the entire theory using that one point, not defending that point.

Well, ultimately a difference in the redshift explanation *is* the primary difference between mainstream theory and PC theory.

Keep in mind that mainstream theory has a "dirty little secret" that they don't want you to know about. According to mainstream theory, 'space expands' and that expansion process affects all the photons. If that were actually the cause of redshift, then all the various photons and different wavelengths should be affected exactly the same way, and there should be little or no broadening or separation of the various wavelengths. They should all be delayed and stretched about the same amount.

Unfortunately for the mainstream 'interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon, that isn't actually what we observe:

UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons, although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct, that would contradict Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that all photons (particles of light) must move at the speed of light.

The reason they believe that such a observation contradicts GR theory (it doesn't actually do so by the way) is because they *assume* space expands. It's not GR theory that these observations actually disagree with however, it's the *interpretation* of cause that it disagrees with.

Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening

Ashmore's theory (unlike Ari's theory by the way) actually "predicts" this effect more correctly than mainstream theory and Ari's concepts as well. Keep in mind too that there are actually several tired light theories, most notably the ones by Ashmore, Thornhill and Ari. All three of them are 'slightly' different. Ashmore's and Thornhill's versions are actually "better" supported by Chen's findings than the third option, mostly based on the way the redshift occurs in Chen's paper. It's more of a direct interaction between particles as Thornhill and Ashmore suggest rather than a field to field interaction as Ari's theory. There are more than just these theories to consider however:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Again, all supernova events *can* and *have* already been 'explained' by tired light theories (plural) and there are many to choose from at this point. Now that plasma redshift has been observed, it's really a matter of selecting the "correct' version to explain both the lab results and the cosmology observations.

I would personally be willing to admit that Brynjolfsson's version is based on applying a "Malmquist bias" to supernova events, meaning he intentionally 'assuming' that longer distance events are probably longer events to begin with. That is in fact an "iffy" assumption to some degree and a 'debatable" one at that. *If* that was actually Rob's primary objection, I would have been willing to grant him that point. It would only suggest however that Brynjolfsson explanation is "less compelling" than other options like Ashmore's option, or Thornhill's explanation, it wouldn't "falsify" all tired light theories. I will admit there is a philosophical argument to be made in terms of Brynjolfsson's assumption of a larger Malquist bias than is typically assumed in mainstream theory. Brynjolfsson has a right to make such an assumption if he so chooses and can show how that applies to other studies. I "think" based on Rob's statements that his biggest beef is that some of the studies already include some amount of adjustment for that Malquist bias, they just don't assume as "large' of a bias.

Either way however, PC theory isn't depending upon *one* tired light theory, there are actually several to choose from and they are all slightly different and all make slightly different assumptions. Ashmore makes fewer assumptions and it therefore is attractive in that way. It's still not clear however that Brynjolfsson's "assumptions" of a large Malquist bias at larger distances are actually inaccurate.

And since when is the west the only place that matters?
And I doubt it's appropriate that you're using such stereotypes.

I just happen to live in America and therefore I would hate to see us lose one of the last remaining technological advantages that we still posses. Space based technologies of the future will all be based upon the knowledge that we live inside an electric universe and they will be designed to take advantage of that knowledge. The more we stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the obvious, the more time Russia and China will have to develop superior space based technologies. I'm not a big fan of that possibility, but it looks to me to be inevitable.

 

[Michael]

I thought the (1+z) was rather specific. Anyhow, neither of you were patient, to the point and concise.

It wasn't clear to me however exactly what he was trying to claim. The fact that Brynjolfsson applies a larger Malquist bias however isn't a valid reason to shut down his theory. It's an "assumption" on his part, just like the mainstream "assumes" space expansion. It's a questionable assumption, but then no theory is devoid of such assumptions. Robs comment however about the solid and open "dots' on the graph wasn't actually accurate in terms of what Brynjolfsson said. He does assume a greater Malquist bias on *distant* events, but he makes no claims about relatively close events as Rob was trying to claim.

Had we both been a bit more patient, perhaps we could have explored Brynjolfsson's assumption about the amount of Malquist bias, but it's not valid IMO for Rob to simply dismiss his ideas out of hand because it is a different assumption than mainstream assumptions.

If you say so.

I know so. Rob claimed that non cosmological redshift ideas were "crank" ideas. Those lab results by Chen destroy that claim all by themselves, with or without the paper by Ashmore and with or without any other "tired light" mathematical models to choose from. Chen and crew demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real phenomenon in plasma. That revelation blows away Rob's claims about it being a "crank" idea. Period.

If you say so, that's essentially what you're doing as well though.

While I admit that I have little tolerance for PC bashing, I've never banned anyone, nor have I ever bashed a form of pure empirical physics. Dark energy hasn't ever been tied to redshift in the lab. Space expansion hasn't even been tied to redshift in a lab either. I've never bashed anything that shows up in the lab and I've never virtually executed anyone or shut down any conversations.

I haven't seen that in astronomers, I've seen that in one astronomer.
And I've seen plenty from you, you use other words but the same scorn.

You're actually right about both points. Most astronomers are not PC/EU 'haters' in the first place. Only a few astronomers like Rob call PC theory a "crank" or a "crackpot" theory or compare it to YEC. There are probably only about about a dozen or so hardcore 'haters" out there, and many more astronomers than there are "haters". I do in fact have a lot of scorn for that type of an attitude at this point in my life, and I now have a pretty big chip on my shoulder toward that kind of attitude based on the way I've been treated by "haters". I have no respect for them at all. That's probably a big part of the problem and it would be foolish of me to deny my complicity in the 'mud slinging'.

If you stay calm others tend to do the same, if they don't you can ignore them.

That's easier said than done, but I hear you.

Since you're very passionate about this subject and like to argue about it as often as you can, why not organize things?

• Stay calm.
  • If you are flamed, don't respond in kind.
• Maintain a reasonable discussion.
• Stay of the caps (which you've done for a while now, great )
• Keep an open mind, to admit you're wrong is a strength.
• Don't wander from the current topic (or sub-topic). Can't stress that enough.
• Discuss one thing at a time, if the discussion branches reserve the rest of the points to discuss at a later time.
• If the argument goes in circles, try to objectively determine why. This is important to break it (doesn't matter if it's you or the other part).
• Try to document all points you've discussed, no matter if you've had to yield them or not (this way a third part can participate on near equal grounds).
  • Google docs is a great way to design and share documents, also allowing for easy editing/printing.

I think there's many more points to improve but I had limited time to come up with them. I'm sure you have the ability to provide with a few more points yourself.

Thanks for the advice. I do agree with everything you suggested. I suppose I need to let go of the past and just focus on the moment. That's probably the best way to go at this point. Admittedly I was a bit aggressive in my criticism of Rob's statements, and it probably didn't help the conversation any.

 

[Davian]

Why would I ever choose to believe in something that is A) made up in one person's head in a purely ad hoc manner without any scientific precedent whatsoever, and B) is as useful in the lab as a dead deistic god from a dead deistic religion?

I don't know. But the question I asked was why would you expect it to show up in the lab?

There is a legitimate yes/no scientific answer to the question: "Does God exist"? It has little or nothing to do with any specific region. It's simply a scientific question with a scientific answer.

I disagree. Without a robust, falsifiable definition of "God", the question cannot be asked coherently. No, your 'theory of God' thread does not address this.

The vast majority of all theist are "monotheists" meaning we all accept the fact that there is but one God and many different religions. There's no value in asking "which god" a theists believes in, just "which religion". The whole notion of multiple "gods" is an atheistic misnomer.

That this 'consensus of opinion' cannot provide evidence for this "fact" means that the whole notion of "gods" can be regarded as man-made concepts.

The Lambda-religion is the religion that has faith in faster than light speed expansion that was caused by impotent on Earth "sky deities", none of which have ever been seen on Earth, nor do they have any effect on anything on Earth.

But if someone were to make such a mischaracterization of your PC/EU hypothesis, that woud be unfair, would it not?

Why wouldn't they be be able to reproduce ANY of their key claims in a lab? If they can't do so, why should I put any faith in such a "dark sky religion"?

I don't know, but what I asked was why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

<snip rant>

 

[Michael]

I don't know. But the question I asked was why would you expect it to show up in the lab?

I don't expect inflation or dark energy to show up in a lab because I doubt it either of them exists or ever existed. That is exactly why I don't put any "faith" in those particular concepts.

I disagree. Without a robust, falsifiable definition of "God", the question cannot be asked coherently. No, your 'theory of God' thread does not address this.

I have to disagree with you on that point. My theory does actually "predict" a host of things, starting with the "prediction' that we will eventually recognize the electrical nature of the universe. That isn't even a "given" by the way. I just posted a link that shows that the layout of matter in the universe has many similarities to a human brain. Why would it have such structures in the first place, and how can you be sure they aren't related to intelligence?

That this 'consensus of opinion' cannot provide evidence for this "fact" means that the whole notion of "gods" can be regarded as man-made concepts.

Not necessarily. If the universe is aware and alive, it completely explains human experiences on Earth, and "God" would be as "physical" and as empirical as you and me. There would only be one universe that is visible to us and one universe that we might interact with as humans living on Earth.

But if someone were to make such a mischaracterization of your PC/EU hypothesis, that woud be unfair, would it not?

The mainstream does it all the time.

What you're calling a "mischaracterization" however is in fact accurate in the sense that none of their trio of metaphysical fudge factors has any empirical effect on anything in the lab. That is as true today as it's ever been. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are a "made up" set of fudge factors that apply to only one cosmology theory, and they are used exclusively in exactly one cosmology theory. In essence, the only reason they exist in literature is to save one otherwise empirically falsified theory.

It's actually hard to "spin" that information in a "positive" way if you're at all skeptical of "metaphysical" entities.

I don't know, but what I asked was why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

My question to you is 'why wouldn't they"? Assuming our universe really is 70 percent "dark energy", 25 percent "dark matter", wouldn't you expect to see *some* effect of their existence on Earth? Now I will in fact grant you that the notion of "dark matter" is actually something that *might* be verified in a lab, and therefore it's the least objectionable "fudge factor' IMO, but even still, it's not even the major player in mainstream theory.

Keep in mind that with Chen's observation of plasma redshift in the lab, there's absolutely no need for anything exotic to exist in nature. All the observations that are typically associated with expansion and acceleration can already be explained by ordinary processes in plasma that all show up in the lab. Why then would I have any need for inflation or dark energy?

Even *if* there was a need for dark matter, it's unlikely such matter is actually "exotic" in nature, and no control mechanisms even exist to "test" the idea properly. LHC "might" offer us an opportunity to "shrink the gaps" of such a concept, but it's always been a "dark matter of the gaps" argument from the start.

 

[Davian]

I don't expect inflation or dark energy to show up in a lab because I doubt it either of them exists or ever existed. That is exactly why I don't put any "faith" in those particular concepts.

To reiterate, does the standard model say that you can expect them to show up in a lab?

I have to disagree with you on that point. My theory does actually "predict" a host of things, starting with the "prediction' that we will eventually recognize the electrical nature of the universe. That isn't even a "given" by the way.

Theories would have to make successful predictions.

I just posted a link that shows that the layout of matter in the universe has many similarities to a human brain. Why would it have such structures in the first place, and how can you be sure they aren't related to intelligence?

It would be for you to demonstrate the validity of such a comparison.

Not necessarily. If the universe is aware and alive, it completely explains human experiences on Earth, and "God" would be as "physical" and as empirical as you and me. There would only be one universe that is visible to us and one universe that we might interact with as humans living on Earth.

And it appears that the universe is not aware.

The mainstream does it all the time.

That's a wide brush you are holding there. Regardless, it does not excuse your misrepresentations.

What you're calling a "mischaracterization" however is in fact accurate in the sense that none of their trio of metaphysical fudge factors has any empirical effect on anything in the lab. That is as true today as it's ever been. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are a "made up" set of fudge factors that apply to only one cosmology theory, and they are used exclusively in exactly one cosmology theory. In essence, the only reason they exist in literature is to save one otherwise empirically falsified theory.

I ask again, why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

It's actually hard to "spin" that information in a "positive" way if you're at all skeptical of "metaphysical" entities.

And being a theist, you are not skeptical of "metaphysical" entities?

My question to you is 'why wouldn't they"? Assuming our universe really is 70 percent "dark energy", 25 percent "dark matter", wouldn't you expect to see *some* effect of their existence on Earth?

As they have been described, no, not at this time.

<snip rambling>

 

[Elendur]

Well, ultimately a difference in the redshift explanation *is* the primary difference between mainstream theory and PC theory.

It is? Then I must admit that I don't understand what the fuss is all about.

Keep in mind that mainstream theory has a "dirty little secret" that they don't want you to know about. According to mainstream theory, 'space expands' and that expansion process affects all the photons. If that were actually the cause of redshift, then all the various photons and different wavelengths should be affected exactly the same way, and there should be little or no broadening or separation of the various wavelengths. They should all be delayed and stretched about the same amount.

I can't be certain about that.

{Snip}

A fun read, just a bit long for me to have in the post. I read it and got something to think about, especially the different theories.

I just happen to live in America and therefore I would hate to see us lose one of the last remaining technological advantages that we still posses. Space based technologies of the future will all be based upon the knowledge that we live inside an electric universe and they will be designed to take advantage of that knowledge. The more we stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the obvious, the more time Russia and China will have to develop superior space based technologies. I'm not a big fan of that possibility, but it looks to me to be inevitable.

Meh, we all live on the same planet. Things get so much easier if you look to the humanity as a whole.

 

[Elendur]

It wasn't clear to me however exactly what he was trying to claim. The fact that Brynjolfsson applies a larger Malquist bias however isn't a valid reason to shut down his theory. It's an "assumption" on his part, just like the mainstream "assumes" space expansion. It's a questionable assumption, but then no theory is devoid of such assumptions. Robs comment however about the solid and open "dots' on the graph wasn't actually accurate in terms of what Brynjolfsson said. He does assume a greater Malquist bias on *distant* events, but he makes no claims about relatively close events as Rob was trying to claim.

Great to hear that you've cleared some things up

Had we both been a bit more patient, perhaps we could have explored Brynjolfsson's assumption about the amount of Malquist bias, but it's not valid IMO for Rob to simply dismiss his ideas out of hand because it is a different assumption than mainstream assumptions.

Oh well, I won't defend him since I don't know his reasons.

I know so. Rob claimed that non cosmological redshift ideas were "crank" ideas. Those lab results by Chen destroy that claim all by themselves, with or without the paper by Ashmore and with or without any other "tired light" mathematical models to choose from. Chen and crew demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real phenomenon in plasma. That revelation blows away Rob's claims about it being a "crank" idea. Period.

Ok.

While I admit that I have little tolerance for PC bashing, I've never banned anyone, nor have I ever bashed a form of pure empirical physics. Dark energy hasn't ever been tied to redshift in the lab. Space expansion hasn't even been tied to redshift in a lab either. I've never bashed anything that shows up in the lab and I've never virtually executed anyone or shut down any conversations.

Even if you haven't done any of those you've done some other things less right

You're actually right about both points. Most astronomers are not PC/EU 'haters' in the first place. Only a few astronomers like Rob call PC theory a "crank" or a "crackpot" theory or compare it to YEC. There are probably only about about a dozen or so hardcore 'haters" out there, and many more astronomers than there are "haters". I do in fact have a lot of scorn for that type of an attitude at this point in my life, and I now have a pretty big chip on my shoulder toward that kind of attitude based on the way I've been treated by "haters". I have no respect for them at all. That's probably a big part of the problem and it would be foolish of me to deny my complicity in the 'mud slinging'.

That's easier said than done, but I hear you.

Thanks for the advice. I do agree with everything you suggested. I suppose I need to let go of the past and just focus on the moment. That's probably the best way to go at this point. Admittedly I was a bit aggressive in my criticism of Rob's statements, and it probably didn't help the conversation any.

This deserves a (though imagine there's just one head and two opposite hands).
I hope you'll have some use of it.

 

[Michael]

To reiterate, does the standard model say that you can expect them to show up in a lab?

No. That's why Lambda-CDM theory is a "religion" that requires "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) rather than a form of empirical physics like PC theory.

Theories would have to make successful predictions.

Most of Lambda "predictions" are actually "postdictions", not "pre"dictions. In fact the introduction of "dark energy" (a full 70 percent of their theory) was a "postdicted" fit based on observed data. Some of the PC theories have made successful predictions, like that prediction of plasma redshift that was observed two years ago in the lab by Chen et all. That observed plasma redshift wasn't even a "prediction" in mainstream theory, but it's prediction in many PC theories! How many "successes" must I have today (vs. sometime in the future)?

It would be for you to demonstrate the validity of such a comparison.

FYI, I wasn't even the one that made that comparison actually.

And it appears that the universe is not aware.

Exactly what data makes it appear that way to you?

That's a wide brush you are holding there. Regardless, it does not excuse your misrepresentations.

What misrepresentations?

I ask again, why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

They wouldn't be "necessarily". They would be if was a brand of pure empirical physics rather than a religious dogma that requires 'faith" in the unseen in the lab.

And being a theist, you are not skeptical of "metaphysical" entities?

I'm very skeptical of all supernatural and metaphysical constructs which is why I started an *empirical* theory of God thread.

As they have been described, no, not at this time.

So when can I expect it to occur, or will it forever be an act of faith in the unseen in the lab, AKA a "religion" rather than a form of empirical physics?

 

[Michael]

It is? Then I must admit that I don't understand what the fuss is all about.

I would categorize PC theory as 100 percent empirical physics vs about 4 percent for mainstream theory. Were we to eliminate the need for 70 percent of mainstream theory (dark energy), the two theories would be much closer together than they are today. There would still be an unresolved issue with "dark matter", but a 70 percent step in the right direction would put them into the same empirical ballpark. As it stands, one theory is 100 percent plasma physics and one theory is only 4% actual physics.

I can't be certain about that.

Well, I cited an article for you that explains the problem quite clearly. There's really no reason in mainstream theory for different wavelengths to travel through space at different speeds, but they do. Certainty is a matter of personal choice in my experience.

Meh, we all live on the same planet. Things get so much easier if you look to the humanity as a whole.

I hear you, and I typically do. In this case however I just think it's a darn shame that astronomy is stuck in what is truly the "dark ages" of that field of science. Such ignorance hinders *everyones* progress IMO, not just progress in America.

 

[Michael]

I hope you'll have some use of it.

I just hope I can implement it properly. Even giving up the caps has been a real pain in the neck and it's one of the easier things on your list!

 

[Davian]

No.

Okay.

That's why Lambda-CDM theory is a "religion" that requires "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) rather than a form of empirical physics like PC theory.

You just contradicted yourself. Did you not just acknowledge that the standard model does not say that you can expect them to show up in the lab?

Most of Lambda "predictions" are actually "postdictions", not "pre"dictions. In fact the introduction of "dark energy" (a full 70 percent of their theory) was a "postdicted" fit based on observed data.

So they *do* have observational evidence for these things. You made it sound like they didn't have any. And the post/prediction thing you noted is not out of line for this sort of thing, is it?

Some of the PC theories have made successful predictions, like that prediction of plasma redshift that was observed two years ago in the lab by Chen et all. That observed plasma redshift wasn't even a "prediction" in mainstream theory, but it's prediction in many PC theories! How many "successes" must I have today (vs. sometime in the future)?

More than the standard model.

FYI, I wasn't even the one that made that comparison actually.

Then why bring it up?

Exactly what data makes it appear that way to you?

Its lack of awareness.

What misrepresentations?

The "in the lab" requirement, for one.

They wouldn't be "necessarily".

Okay.

They would be if was a brand of pure empirical physics rather than a religious dogma that requires 'faith" in the unseen in the lab.

As it does not necessarily rely on what is seen "in the lab", I guess it will have to be a brand of empirical physics that relies on astronomical data.

I'm very skeptical of all supernatural and metaphysical constructs which is why I started an *empirical* theory of God thread.

Are you sceptical of the Christian God?

So when can I expect it to occur, or will it forever be an act of faith in the unseen in the lab, AKA a "religion" rather than a form of empirical physics?

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

 

[Michael]

Okay.

You just contradicted yourself. Did you not just acknowledge that the standard model does not say that you can expect them to show up in the lab?

So what? Deism predicts that God will not show up in a lab too. I still wouldn't consider deism to be a form of "science" or "physics", just a "religion" that requires faith in the 'unseen' forever and ever like mainstream cosmology "religion".

So they *do* have observational evidence for these things.

No, they do not. They have observational evidence for redshift not for expansion or acceleration. They certainly have no observational evidence that "dark energy" did it, even *if* we assumed that redshift is related to acceleration.

You made it sound like they didn't have any.

They don't! That observation by Chen et all in the lab two years ago pretty much destroys, certainly undermines their "interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon.

And the post/prediction thing you noted is not out of line for this sort of thing, is it?

That depends on what you mean by "out of line". Their original prediction was a 'slowing' universe. Dark energy was added to "fix" a failure in their theory, and yet 'dark energy' has never "accelerated' a single atom anywhere in any lab.

It's certainly "out of line" with empirical measurements of plasma redshift in the lab.

More than the standard model.

Pffft. The standard model is more of a 'religion' and less empirical and therefore less "testable" than anything I've proposed. Whatever it actually "predicted" just went up in smoke in the lab.

Then why bring it up?

I actually posted it to the appropriate thread as well.

Its lack of awareness.

It heard that! What kind of a silly handwave is that?

The "in the lab" requirement, for one.

I didn't misrepresent it, I simply noted that it's lack of empirical support (qualification) makes it a religion rather than a form of empirical physics.

As it does not necessarily rely on what is seen "in the lab", I guess it will have to be a brand of empirical physics that relies on astronomical data.

Assuming that's true, that's also true of my empirical theory of God concept as well. There are a few features that do not have empirical support (yet).

Are you sceptical of the Christian God?

Ya know....
If you're going to blame me for misrepresenting mainstream theory, the least you could do is acknowledge the correct meaning of the term "monotheism". There is no such thing as a "Muslim God" or a "Christian God" or a "Jewish God". We all agree there is but one God, and many "religions" that describe that one God. If you're asking me if I'm skeptical of the Christian religion, it depends on how you define the "Christian religion".

The best way I could explain my beliefs is to say that I love Jesus and I honor his teachings. He is my personal Lord and savior. At one point in my life I was even skeptical of his teachings, but after applying them to my life, not so much anymore. I still have no faith in YEC or concepts like 'book infallibility" (of any religion), or eternal torment. I still consider myself to be a (universalist) Christian, but like I said, it depends on how you define "Christianity".

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

If you expect me to put any faith in the concept, the core parts should all be reproducible in the lab. That's definitely true if you expect to compete with PC/EU theory over the long haul. EU's key "predictions' all show up in the lab, and none of it requires "faith in the unseen" in the lab. Even my concept of "God" kicks the empirical hell out of mainstream cosmological dogma.

 

[Elendur]

I would categorize PC theory as 100 percent empirical physics vs about 4 percent for mainstream theory. Were we to eliminate the need for 70 percent of mainstream theory (dark energy), the two theories would be much closer together than they are today. There would still be an unresolved issue with "dark matter", but a 70 percent step in the right direction would put them into the same empirical ballpark. As it stands, one theory is 100 percent plasma physics and one theory is only 4% actual physics.

Time will tell, I'll sit here drinking my soft drink, playing games and delving deeper into the mathematical worlds while I wait

Well, I cited an article for you that explains the problem quite clearly. There's really no reason in mainstream theory for different wavelengths to travel through space at different speeds, but they do. Certainty is a matter of personal choice in my experience.

I agree, certainty is a personal choice.
I'm making the personal choice to remain uncertain (weighing for and against in taking the time to learn for myself), perhaps not the most exiting choice though.

I hear you, and I typically do. In this case however I just think it's a darn shame that astronomy is stuck in what is truly the "dark ages" of that field of science. Such ignorance hinders *everyones* progress IMO, not just progress in America.

I agree, ignorance hinders everyone.
Truth be told, that's the main reason I registered in this forum. There were certain posts that I felt couldn't go unanswered, then some more and after that I got hooked
I've been a 'forum junkie light' before, from time to time, but this forum offers so much more than other forums I've visited (game forums).

I just hope I can implement it properly. Even giving up the caps has been a real pain in the neck and it's one of the easier things on your list!

A journey always start with a single step just comparing your posts now with one week ago is a huge difference.
It's 'easy' to propose change, to actually change something isn't even comparable.
Lots of Respect (with capital R) to you for taking the leap to improve thank you for listening to me, I have appreciated the feeling of not only spouting nonsense

 

[Michael]

Time will tell, I'll sit here drinking my soft drink, playing games and delving deeper into the mathematical worlds while I wait

True enough.

I agree, certainty is a personal choice.
I'm making the personal choice to remain uncertain (weighing for and against in taking the time to learn for myself), perhaps not the most exiting choice though.

I suppose that's the core difference between having a position of strong atheism or theism, vs. having a weak atheistic stance. You're just afraid of commitment.

I agree, ignorance hinders everyone.
Truth be told, that's the main reason I registered in this forum. There were certain posts that I felt couldn't go unanswered, then some more and after that I got hooked

FYI, that's exactly how I got into discussions with astronomers. Careful now, it's a lifelong and frustrating process if you're trying to remove all ignorance from the entire human race.

I've been a 'forum junkie light' before, from time to time, but this forum offers so much more than other forums I've visited (game forums).

I agree. It's better than most astronomy forums as well by the way. I actually have more freedom to discuss my whole range of beliefs and I'm unlikely to be banned for my cosmological heresy here.

A journey always start with a single step just comparing your posts now with one week ago is a huge difference.
It's 'easy' to propose change, to actually change something isn't even comparable.
Lots of Respect (with capital R) to you for taking the leap to improve thank you for listening to me, I have appreciated the feeling of not only spouting nonsense

One thing I've noticed about most of the folks that "lack belief' on this particular forum is that they are typically very adept at getting their points across without a lot of emotional baggage and without a lot of personal insults. I think that's an admirable quality. Unfortunately I have a few things to learn yet along those lines. I'm trying. I do appreciate the feedback, but you'll need to be a bit patient with me. I've still got some things to learn and bad habits can be really hard to break.

 

[toLiJC]

Anyone who has any experance at all with computers knows about memory and the problem of decay and corruption. The only solution seems to be to back up your data. Sean Carrol asks how can memory exists apart from basic physics of atoms and electrons?

"Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there&#8217;s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?" Sean Carrol (Phd Physics Harvard)

Just what is the tree of life or even the bread of life that will allow us to live forever. The disciples thought that perhaps after the resurrection Jesus was Spirit or pure energy. But that does not seem to be the case. He ate fish and honey, after the resurrection.

24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted *, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb *.
24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Hi norman

in the universe there are two main things which are the two main parts of God's Creation, and they are the Heaven and the Earth, the heaven is the world of good, while the earth is the constructive substance, or said in more understandable words, it is the accomplishment of the variety of good and life, both exist not only in this world, but also in the paradise of eternal life, as it is written:

Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea(viz. occult world)."

what would the life be if there has no whatever constructive substance in the universe so that if all souls have existed only in some bleak space?!, that is why God made the earth, so, the Holy Spirit is the management, while the Holy Flesh is the consumption

Blessings

 

[Davian]

So what? Deism predicts that God will not show up in a lab too. I still wouldn't consider deism to be a form of "science" or "physics", just a "religion" that requires faith in the 'unseen' forever and ever like mainstream cosmology "religion".

You don't actually read my questions, do you?

No, they do not. They have observational evidence for redshift not for expansion or acceleration.

Yes, the expansion would be an indirect observation.

They certainly have no observational evidence that "dark energy" did it, even *if* we assumed that redshift is related to acceleration.

But if the redshift is related to expansion, we can use 'dark energy' as a placeholder for what did it.

They don't! That observation by Chen et all in the lab two years ago pretty much destroys, certainly undermines their "interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon.

I get it. All those telescopes pointed out into space are just for taking pretty pictures, like those from Hubble.

That depends on what you mean by "out of line". Their original prediction was a 'slowing' universe. Dark energy was added to "fix" a failure in their theory, and yet 'dark energy' has never "accelerated' a single atom anywhere in any lab.

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

It's certainly "out of line" with empirical measurements of plasma redshift in the lab.

But not for astrophysics.

Pffft. The standard model is more of a 'religion' and less empirical and therefore less "testable" than anything I've proposed. Whatever it actually "predicted" just went up in smoke in the lab.

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

I actually posted it to the appropriate thread as well.

It heard that! What kind of a silly handwave is that?

An appropriate one, it would appear, for the claim being made.

I didn't misrepresent it, I simply noted that it's lack of empirical support (qualification) makes it a religion rather than a form of empirical physics.

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

Assuming that's true, that's also true of my empirical theory of God concept as well. There are a few features that do not have empirical support (yet).

It's that 'yet' part that is a problem for so many hypotheses...

Ya know....
If you're going to blame me for misrepresenting mainstream theory, the least you could do is acknowledge the correct meaning of the term "monotheism". There is no such thing as a "Muslim God" or a "Christian God" or a "Jewish God". We all agree there is but one God, and many "religions" that describe that one God.

And all it takes is one Jew, Muslim, or Christian to disagree with you to prove that statement wrong.

If you're asking me if I'm skeptical of the Christian religion, it depends on how you define the "Christian religion".

A religion with supernatural and metaphysical constructs.

The best way I could explain my beliefs is to say that I love Jesus and I honor his teachings. He is my personal Lord and savior. At one point in my life I was even skeptical of his teachings, but after applying them to my life, not so much anymore. I still have no faith in YEC or concepts like 'book infallibility" (of any religion), or eternal torment. I still consider myself to be a (universalist) Christian, but like I said, it depends on how you define "Christianity".

From my experience, it would appear to be on a Christian-by-Christian basis.

If you expect me to put any faith in the concept, the core parts should all be reproducible in the lab. That's definitely true if you expect to compete with PC/EU theory over the long haul. EU's key "predictions' all show up in the lab, and none of it requires "faith in the unseen" in the lab. Even my concept of "God" kicks the empirical hell out of mainstream cosmological dogma.

Only in the lab, though.

My computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

But seriously, I don't have the existence of a deity riding on any of this, and now you are contradicting your earlier answers. I'll watch to see if you get anything new.

 

[Michael]

You don't actually read my questions, do you?

Of course. You don't actually like my answers, do you?

Yes, the expansion would be an indirect observation.

No, that is incorrect. It's technically an indirect *interpretation*. The only "observation" is actually redshifted photons. You subjectively interpret that redshift to be related to "expansion" and "acceleration/dark energy". Chen et all have demonstrated however that plasma redshift is also a valid empirical "interpretation" of that very same observation of redshift.

But if the redshift is related to expansion, we can use 'dark energy' as a placeholder for what did it.

There are several problems with your subjective "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. If it's related to expansion and acceleration(dark energy), it would mean that spacetime is expanding faster than twice the speed of light. That's physically impossible. "Space" never does any expansion tricks in the lab and objects made of mass cannot travel faster than C. Plasma redshift has already been demonstrated in the lab, and it requires no faster than light speed expansion.

I get it. All those telescopes pointed out into space are just for taking pretty pictures, like those from Hubble.

Actually the designing and building and launching of satellites are my favorite part of what astronomers do for a living. It almost makes me accept the PC haters of the industry because frankly there aren't that many haters in astronomy, and unlike most professional astronomers that I've met, the haters actually know almost nothing about physics.

The problem with your favorite cosmology theory has nothing to do with those pretty pictures, in fact they are quite beautiful. The problem, and the dispute lies in the "interpretation" of those images.

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

You're sort of skirting the real issue as I see it, and asking me the wrong question entirely as I see things.

Electric Universe theory has already predicted, documented and demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real physical process that occurs in plasma. I already have an *empirical* solution to that redshift phenomenon. I have no need, nor do I have any "faith" in magical space expansion tricks, nor faster than light speed movement of objects with mass. Based on a simple Occam's razor argument, your space expansion interpretation of redshift simply bites the empirical dust in a big way IMO.

It doesn't necessarily *have* to show up in a lab, but if it doesn't, it's not empirically competitive with other empirical interpretations.

But not for astrophysics.

You mean astroreligion, not astrophysics. In real empirical "physics", redshift is related to movement of physical objects (not space expansion) and plasma redshift. There is no physical link between "expansion of space" and redshift in the lab. That's astroreligious dogma you're describing, not astroempiricalphysics.

Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?

Like I said, why *shouldn't* they be reproducible in the lab since plasma redshift is reproducible in the lab already? Why should I settle for less? Your theory of choice isn't empirically competitive from my perspective. Why should I even entertain something like that when I have a "better", physically demonstrable solution to the problem?

It's that 'yet' part that is a problem for so many hypotheses...

As long as we make some kind of distinction between empirical physics that shows up in the lab, and things that don't, I'm happy. You can call it a hypothesis, or a religion for all I care, but it's not empirical physics in the lab. Some aspects of my spiritual beliefs are fully empirical in nature. I can't fully demonstrate "soul" at the moment however. It's just as legitimate of a hypothesis as inflation, or dark energy or dark matter or any of the hypothetical particles of quantum mechanics. In fact I'd bet money that it will be QM that leads us to "soul" in the lab.

And all it takes is one Jew, Muslim, or Christian to disagree with you to prove that statement wrong.

Not really. As I see it, God is the living universe. I don't profess to own the universe, nor do I profess to own God. God/The Universe owns *me*, because he has created me, not the other way around. It's a singular thing. There is only one of them. By your logic, because you and I have different beliefs about the one universe that we live in, there must be two universes. There are two "theories" in dispute, not two universes.

A religion with supernatural and metaphysical constructs.

Nope. Sorry, I can't help you in that case. I simply don't believe in supernatural constructs. You'll have to count me out.

I'll hedge just a wee bit on the "metaphysical" issue at the moment, only because I cannot physically demonstrate soul in the lab yet. I do however believe that soul is empirically real, as real as my physical body, even if I can't physically demonstrate it yet.

From my experience, it would appear to be on a Christian-by-Christian basis.

I would agree with that assessment.

Only in the lab, though.

My computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

Ok you get some humor points for that one. That was funny.

But seriously, I don't have the existence of a deity riding on any of this, and now you are contradicting your earlier answers. I'll watch to see if you get anything new.

Well, technically neither do I. FYI, I became a "Christian" again (from atheism), long before I learned about electric universe theory. I'm fine with my "faith" in God being simply a form of "faith". Should that *one* possible empirical theory of God be falsified eventually, it wouldn't really be all that big of a deal in terms of my actual "faith". I'd be more "bumbed" about it being falsified in terms of my interest in "science" and physics and my interest in electric universe theory.

I simply could not help revisiting the whole pantheistic view of the universe after embracing electric universe theory about 7 years ago. It just was too much of a "coincidence" from my perspective that humans are electric/physical in nature, and the universe is too.

 

[Elendur]

I suppose that's the core difference between having a position of strong atheism or theism, vs. having a weak atheistic stance. You're just afraid of commitment.

That is a strong possibility. I'll have to think about that

FYI, that's exactly how I got into discussions with astronomers. Careful now, it's a lifelong and frustrating process if you're trying to remove all ignorance from the entire human race.

Hah, I know, I'll settle for those in my immediate vicinity.

I agree. It's better than most astronomy forums as well by the way. I actually have more freedom to discuss my whole range of beliefs and I'm unlikely to be banned for my cosmological heresy here.

Unlikely indeed, especially since there's no rule against something like it.

One thing I've noticed about most of the folks that "lack belief' on this particular forum is that they are typically very adept at getting their points across without a lot of emotional baggage and without a lot of personal insults. I think that's an admirable quality. Unfortunately I have a few things to learn yet along those lines. I'm trying. I do appreciate the feedback, but you'll need to be a bit patient with me. I've still got some things to learn and bad habits can be really hard to break.

I agree.
You're doing better and better, just don't expect perfection (nobody is perfect at least that I know of ).

 

[mzungu]

One thing I've noticed about most of the folks that "lack belief' on this particular forum is that they are typically very adept at getting their points across without a lot of emotional baggage and without a lot of personal insults. I think that's an admirable quality. Unfortunately I have a few things to learn yet along those lines. I'm trying. I do appreciate the feedback, but you'll need to be a bit patient with me. I've still got some things to learn and bad habits can be really hard to break.

Wisely spoken and admirably expressed! A good debate requires such conditions and lest we forget what Solon once said: "I grow old learning something new everyday".

The path to erudition is never ending and sometimes is an arduous one but bears many fruit to the one who perseveres!

 

[mzungu]

(nobody is perfect at least that I know of ).

What is perfection but one's quest to achieve the impossible